Updated 10:13 pm, Sunday, April 7, 2013

Agency officials could only tell the Frisco Republican that they do not test recipients, and few people lose their benefits because of drug convictions or tips that can be corroborated.

“I already knew the answer,” Turner said. “I have a 12-year-old reality in my house that was neglected. ... My sister was on state assistance and wasn't feeding my nephew while she was on drugs. If we have an issue with this, let's hit it head-on.”

Most Popular

Turner is among Texas lawmakers who have introduced at least seven bills that would mandate drug screening and testing for applicants to the federally-funded and state-run Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program, which temporarily provides small payments for food and shelter while applicants look for work or receive career training.

Texas TANF participants, who receive an average of $70 per month for each person in the household, must sign a personal responsibility contract involving such requirements as child support, children's school attendance, parenting classes, medical screenings and immunizations for children.

Authors of the proposed legislation say it is not enough that state agencies look for convictions when monitoring TANF participants' promise to not use drugs. Opponents say the measures unfairly target poor Americans and insinuate they are more likely to abuse drugs than those receiving other forms of government funding, including contracts and school grants.

The federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 permits states to incorporate drug testing into their TANF programs.

Michigan was the first state to implement random drug testing in a 1999 pilot program, but a state court of appeals closed the program in 2003, with a ruling that suspicion-less testing is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Seven states have enacted similar measures — all but two require risk screening before drug testing — and another 29 states are considering legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Three Texas bills propose testing some applicants for state unemployment benefits rather than TANF applicants.

No one argues with the intent: preventing federal assistance dollars from being used to buy drugs. But even after years of discussion and monitoring of the programs in effect, legislators and rights advocates do not agree on whether it is a good or effective idea.

Opponents are quick to point to Florida's experience.

Florida ran a pilot program from 1999 to 2001, but leaders decided the costs and invasiveness of the tests did not warrant making it permanent.

Nonetheless, Florida Gov. Rick Scott pushed through legislation in 2010 that required urine tests for all applicants. Two federal court rulings in 2012 and 2013 have halted the program, including a February appeals decision that found the state likely violated the Fourth Amendment by not showing a “substantial special need.”

“There is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a 'concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use,” the judge wrote in the ruling.

In the four months the Florida program was in operation, the Department of Children and Families reported it had little impact in deterring drug users. Officials said only 40 applicants out of more than 4,000 canceled a drug test after completing the application.

A total of 108 applicants, or 2.6 percent, tested positive — a drug-use rate three times lower than federal surveys show for the general population.

The state of Florida spent $118,140 on drug tests — $45,780 more than it saved by not paying benefits to those who tested positive.

The Texas bills that would require screening before testing sidestep the constitutional questions raised in Florida while still protecting taxpayer dollars and children, the bills' authors say.

“I want to make sure we are helping the people who are doing their best to be good parents for their children and not wasting the taxpayers' money that they are being given on buying drugs, which actually harms their ability to be good parents,” said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Spring, who authored House Bill 1582. It is considered one of the strictest proposals because it criminalizes lying about illicit drug use on the application or using drugs while receiving benefits.

Opponents dispute Riddle's claim that her bill protects children because, unlike many other Texas proposals, it does not establish a way for a child to still receive TANF assistance if a parent fails a drug test.

“It punishes children and further destabilizes families,” said Cindy Eigler with the interfaith advocacy organization Texas Impact.

“They're useless words inserted to try and make it less unconstitutional,” Kayanan said. “There are not varying degrees of constitutionality.”

Invasive elements of enforcement, such as reporting everyone who fails a drug test to the Department of Family and Protective Services, are among the overlooked impacts of this legislation, Kayanan added. In Florida, she said, that provision resulted in state investigators visiting a child's school or day care when a parent only had tested positive because of a legally prescribed drug.

Fiscal reports on the bills suggest the state would have to hire about a dozen new caseworkers to handle the increased number of reports.

Scott McGown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs for lower-income Texans, said that if drug testing public assistance recipients has to be done, it must be implemented to minimize harm for the more than 100,000 Texas households receiving TANF benefits each year.

All of the TANF proposals in the House remain in committee, but SB 11 has been passed to the full Senate for consideration.